As
citizens within a democratic society we live in a state of illusion
believing that our basic rights are protected. True we have
constitutional right to choose our government, the right to free
speech and assembly, even the right to defend ourselves once accused
of an offence. These are to be considered the most basic rights and
freedoms under the umbrella of a free society. At the same time we
believe that there are in existence regulatory bodies, watchdogs if
you wish, who provide an important opportunity to air out grievances
before a third party adjudicator.
For
a long time Canadians scoffed at the American system of what we
called 'dollar value justice', that at the slightest provocation
anyone would sue anyone in the US. Here in Canada we think we are
more civilized and maybe that is the reason for the numerous
guardians of society. We have the Office of the Ombudsman, who likes
to call himself Ontario's Watchdog. Parliament supposedly has an
Integrity Commissioner and an Ethics Committee, the police have
various local disciplinary boards and the Ontario Commission on
Police Services and Office of the Independent Police Review Director.
Our doctors have the College of Physicians and Surgeons Ontario and
our lawyers the Law Society of Upper Canada.
Away
from the more official sphere of society there is the Ontario Press
Council which claims to defend principles to inspire trust. The
Canadian Radio-Television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), not
only produces licenses but also regulates conduct over our airwaves
which can be assaulted through television and radio. There is even
the Commission of Complaints for Telecommunication Suppliers which
oversees the issues of the private sector relating to the
telecommunication industry.
These
watchdogs exist in various shapes and sizes, different breeds, with
and without catchy slogans. Yet upon examination they all seem to
share one common trait, that is, each is made up of people from the
related field that they supposedly oversee. Doctors oversee doctors,
lawyers oversee complaints about lawyers, police investigate issues
against police, and so it goes on. It is argued that if one does not
understand specific procedure then one cannot provide a fair
adjudication of a complaint. This is where the illusion, the smoke
and mirrors really begins.
Interaction
and experience with these various watchdogs presents a rather
frightening reality. The Ontario Press Council starts off the roll
call, and yes it has a catchy slogan, the
OPC claims to be “Defending principles to inspire public trust.”
What principles are they
defending and in what way? Can anyone at the Press Council in fact
believe in this goo?
The
Ontario Press Council was founded in 1972 as a voluntary media
adjudication body which investigates complaints about newspapers in
Ontario, Canada. As of 2009 it claimed to have 228 newspapers as
members, in July 2011, Sun Media withdrew its membership taking out
27 of its newspapers. Although its mission statement, “The
Ontario Press Council upholds acceptable journalistic and ethical
standards on behalf of the public and press alike while defending the
democratic rights of free speech and freedom of the press,” sounds
impressive yet as a voluntary organization it has no real powers.
In
August 2012, the Press Council was presented with a situation
relating to Bullet
News Niagara,
an online news source and Niagara
this Week,
a Niagara regional community newspaper owned by Metroland Media.
Mayorgate covered the issues in some detail in an article called, Is news media obligated to present the truth?
Attempts
were made to find a solution with both media organizations. Peter
Conradi as the publisher of Bullet
News Niagara
had tried to defend his online publication, though Mr. Conradi's
credibility relating to this situation somewhat less than strong with
a history of proven deceit. In 2006 Peter Conradi was the city
editor at The
Standard newspaper
in St. Catharines Ontario. A front page story in late June of 2006
written by reporter Matthew Van Dongen featuring a local developer
Nino Donatelli had been published with photographs. That article was
intentionally deceitful of the public and the photographs were
cropped with the intent to portray an image greatly removed from
fact. Many would of heard the term that a photograph never lies or
that its worth a thousand words, that front page of
The Standard
was a screaming banshee liar. At the time the whole deceit of the
front page and more was brought to the attention of the Press
Council. The Ontario Press Council conducted a review and instructed
The Standard
to 'redress' the issue, but by then the site in question had
everything removed by developer Nino Donatelli.
The Standard front page published the photograph which was intentionally misleading of the facts. |
This is an original photograph taken by Alexander Davidoff which shows the mountains of contaminated soil to be enormous and approximately 15ft. and higher. |
The photograph in The Standard was intentionally cropped to suit the story, not the truth. This fact was confirmed by the original reporter in an interview on August 24th 2007. |
Original photograph taken early June 2006, by Alexander Davidoff |
Peter
Conradi as the city editor at The
Standard
had photographs cropped to suit the story! The truth mattered little
and an interview with the reporter Matthew Van Dongen, recorded at
the time, confirmed this fact. When asked why did the photos
published in the article provide an image that was an absolute lie,
Matthew Van Dongen said that the “photos
were cropped by the editor to suit the story.”
That recording is made available here for anyone wishing to hear it
for themselves.
Fast forward to 2012, Peter Conradi now publisher of Bullet News Niagara and the issue at hand is intentional deceit published relating to exactly the same property. It is Peter Conradi who on August 22, 2012 states in an email “Please be advised that we will not print personal attacks on individuals and naturally that also goes for libellous statements.” Hmm.
This
time out the Press Council supposedly reviewed the details and its
executive director had the decision posted on their website. The
Ontario Press Council lied and published publicly its lie. So much
for defending principles to inspire public trust. In its posted
decision the OPC state “Davidoff
was offered an opportunity to express his opinions on the subject by
both Niagara this Week and Bullet News, but he chose not to do so.”
Don
McCurdy was contacted and within a few days a revised version
published though once again far from fact.
Niagara
this Week
had not made an offer of any kind they simply ignored the whole
thing. Was this lie posted by the Press Council on their own or were
they lied to in return by Niagara
this Week?
When the OPC posted the revised version it was more clear. The
original lie was that of the OPC and the revised version a greater
one. Copies of correspondence with Niagara
this Week prove
no opportunity was in fact provided to resolve the issue and the
Ontario Press Council found it unnecessary to deal with the truth.
The
pomposity of the Ontario Press Council is further evident when
viewing its official web page titled 'Where The Ontario Press Council
Stands, Journalism of Opinion'. Here the OPC states: “Columnists
are given wide latitude to express controversial opinions but, when
they present what purports to be a statement of fact, they should
ensure that it is accurate and, when necessary, provide the source of
the information.” The
OPC continues down the page with this, “A
media organization publishing an unsolicited opinion article should
go beyond simply determining that it is not libellous; it should be
prepared to accept responsibility jointly with the author for factual
errors.”
Empty and hypocritical words provided by a club.
In
the 'Message From the OPC Chair', Dr. Robert Elgie states, “With
the proliferation of social media, independent bloggers and
individuals who profess to be journalists, it is extremely important
for the public to seek reliable news sources.” It
is true that the public needs to believe that what they read is
reliable and true. Dr. Elgie does not sound like he has much of a
pleasant opinion of bloggers and that is maybe because they are
'independent'. Traditional media align itself with political parties
providing in effect nothing more than PR sheets for them. Here in
this case two so-called media organizations, one more traditional
than the other, provided an article which was based on an absolute
lie. Both media organizations breached even what the OPC sets out as
their version of ethical acceptable conduct. As the knight in
shining armour the Ontario Press Council armed with its slogan in
turn publishes publicly a lie to add to those already provided by
both media organizations.
The
public on the whole has little to no faith in the press, that is
simply a fact. An individual who buys a paper will always see 'news'
reported more as opinion today with allegiance to one side or the
other of the political fence. Dr. Elgie's pomposity may be sated
with such a statement as “independent bloggers and individuals who
profess to be journalists..,” yet the proof that traditional media
is more likely to only “profess to be journalists” is now the
likely norm. Whether it is Niagara
this Week, Bullet News Niagara,
its publisher Peter Conradi, or Marlene Bergsma of The
Standard
hard undeniable proof has been provided of intentional deceit passed
off as news or claimed opinion. And, the Ontario Press Council has
simply jumped on top of the pile with a public lie without a public
apology.
One down, and more to come. How
far do we trust these clubs who purport to be guardians of our
society? In a democracy we elect our government and its various
representatives. Yet what happens when we catch one of those elected
to have committed an act less than honest or dignified? If it was a
fish caught in one of our lakes and it was of a size that was less
than impressive or had two heads, we have the choice to photograph it
for Facebook or throw it back. Do we as a democratic society have
the same opportunity with an elected representative? Is there a way
to have this individual questioned or are we to shut up and wait till
the next election.
An individual could try to approach
the media to bring public attention but media seems to always know
what is in the public interest to be reported, regardless of Dr.
Elgie's high opinion of them. Canada's parliamentary system has a
system of Integrity Commissioners and Ethics Committees at the
provincial and federal levels. In Ontario the Office of the
Integrity Commissioner was created in 1988 with the passing of the
Conflict of Interest Act of 1988 later amended as Members Integrity
Act in 1994. At least the title sounds impressive, more so than most
of the 'watchdogs'.
In
September of 2011 the Office of the Integrity Commissioner for the
Legislative Assembly of Ontario was presented with serious
allegations relating to MPP Jim Bradley. The issues revolved around
obstruction and misuse of powers something that could be considered
unethical and definitely
without
integrity. It was the response from the Office of the Integrity
Commissioner that was somewhat bewildering. It appears that the
Integrity Commissioner is not there to receive complaints from the
public, in fact he only deals with complaints by ministers against
other ministers. The letter from the Integrity Inquiries Coordinator
Ian Stedman did not bother to assist a member of the voting public in
any way at all, it simply said 'don't bother us you fool'. No advice
was provided where one may be able to go to be heard or who would
investigate such serious allegations regarding an elected member of
our democratic government.
So
far now we are stuck with that smelly thing at the end of the winning
vote, next logical step would be the Office of the Ombudsman. Here
once again a catchy slogan, one cannot miss it even as one steps out
of the elevator. On the wall facing the elevator doors is a promise
“Ontario's
Watchdog,”
probably made with fingers crossed.
The Office of the Ombudsman was
established in Ontario in March 1975 its powers and authorities are
set out in the Ombudsman Act. They include the power to enter any
government premises to gather evidence, and the power to compel
witnesses to give evidence. The act also requires individuals as
well as government officials and employees to cooperate with the
Ombudsman's investigations (Wikipedia – Ontario Ombudsman). All
of this sounds impressive. Reforms have resulted in areas such as
the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, compensation of crime
victims, Legal Aid and the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation,
all after investigations and recommendations by the Ombudsman. Still
the powers and jurisdiction of Ontario's Watchdog are limited.
Ontario's Ombudsman has no
authority over lawyers or doctors (both have their own private clubs)
nor does the Ombudsman have any real authority over municipalities,
other than look into complaints regarding closed door meetings. Most
importantly the Ombudsman has no authority to investigate any
complaints or issues relating to the Ontario Cabinet or its elected
ministers.
On July 3rd 2012 a
request for an investigation was presented to the Office of the
Ombudsman. This request revolved around the issue of a Minister of
Environment who had instructed two separate directors of the ministry
to alter details of official reports filed on record by the ministry
under the Environmental Bill of Rights and presented at the
legislature. No part of this allegation, in two separate stages was
frivolous or without clear undeniable evidence. There was no
illusion that the minister in question would in fact be investigated
that is simply not possible after all in our democracy. Yet two
individual senior employees, public servants, had no shelter from the
truth. Well that was the foolish illusion at the time.
A Maggie DiDomizio was assigned the
case file for investigation and DiDomizio ensured that Minister of
Environment Jim Bradley and his two directors, Lisa Feldman and Bill
Bardswick, were permitted to do as they pleased. Official reports
placed on record, even presented at the legislature by the
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario appeared to matter no more than
used bathroom tissue to Maggie DiDomizio of the Ombudsman's Office.
The Environmental Commissioner of
Ontario Gord Miller confirmed in an interview at Queen's Park that
this was a serious issue and would warrant an investigation by his
colleague Andre Marin, in particular if the alterations changed the
complexity of the original reports. Changes made by Directors
Feldman and Bardswick completely altered the circumstances of the
original reports, and each of the directors had confirmed that they
were acting upon the request of Minister Jim Bradley.
True the Ombudsman has no real
authority in many areas particularly that of the Cabinet and its
ministers. Yet this was an opportunity for Andre Marin to help
protect our Environmental Bill of Rights. He chose instead what
appears to be political safety over truth or fact. A letter was sent
to Andre Marin in an attempt to find a solution, Marin ignored it
without any response.
With a budget of $10.75 million for
2011-2012 and employing some 85 staff, the Office of the Ombudsman
who likes to see himself as Ontario's Watchdog, in fact is only a
toothless mutt. The situation with Minsiter Jim Bradley and his
directors, Feldman and Bardswick, is not the only example of the
watchdog's dentures dropping. His OMLET (a catchy little acronym) –
the Open Meeting Law Enforcement Team – specializing in
investigations of closed door meeting complaints also proved its lack
of will to act. The Regional Municipality of Niagara faced two such
complaints in succession and only received a little public wrist
slap.
Although Andre Marin lays claim to
have instigated dramatic reforms in areas such as the Municipal
Property Assessment Corporation, the Ontario Lottery and Gaming
Corporation and others, more often it is an excuse why his office can
do nothing that is received as a response to a plea for help.
One might think of the Office of
the Auditor General as an alternative on the side of the public, but
it would be disappointment again. Here the Auditor General shows some
mixed signals and leaves only a question mark as a footprint.
So what are the people left with as
alternatives? Very little in fact as far as irregularities with our
elected representatives, we do indeed have to simply shut up and wait
for the next election. There are other 'watchdogs' such as the
Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services and Office of the
Independent Police Review Director, which investigates complaints
relating to our various police departments and individual police
officers. Our lawyers have a regulatory body of their own called the
Law Society of Upper Canada and our doctors the College of Physicians
and Surgeons of Ontario. A case which exemplifies these 'clubs' was
that of a doctor who had wilfully lied to the public. We all have
heard of the Oath of Hippocrates and believe that if there are few in
society who we can trust, surely our doctors we must.
In the Niagara Region its chief
medical officer Doctor Valerie Jaeger who lied to the public. Dr.
Jaeger is not only the region's chief medical officer she is also a
practising family physician. The proof of Dr. Jaeger's lies
conclusive and undeniable. In its decision the College of Physicians
and Surgeons decided they had no authority over the matter. It was
irrelevant to the College that Dr. Jaeger was a licensed practising
family physician. Their get out of jail card was that she was a
government official. In their decision the College did not clear Dr.
Jaeger of the intentional lies, or deny the fact she was a practising
family doctor. All the College said was that she was a government
official in the employ of the Regional Municipality of Niagara.
Therefore it was quite acceptable for Dr. Valerie Jaeger to lie! No
wonder the elected representatives can get away with just about
anything.
Our private sector has its own
watchdogs such as the CRTC which slapped the wrist of Sun TV's Ezra
Levant for his public insult relating to the executive of the
Chiquita Brands International, Inc. Telecommunications service
providers have an authority called the Commissioner of Complaints for
Telecommunication Services. The CCTS is currently investigating a
situation of overcharging, customer abuse and harassment by Bell
Canada. This Commissioner is a legislated body made up of
telecommunication providers such as Bell Canada, Rogers and many
more. Funding for the CCTS is in fact provided by its members, so it
is going to be interesting to see what indeed will be the decision
brought forward.
After examining these 'watchdogs'
it is hard to still believe we have any real chance in hell when as
members of the public we need help. Perhaps it is time we put aside
the snide remarks about our southern cousins and their propensity to
sue just about anyone. Our basic principles of democracy are still
there in a way, yet Canada has become truly a dollar value justice
society, denying that fact only allows the huge wheels of
bureaucracies to roll over one's tax paying body.
Send comments to: demtruth@gmail.com